Welllll, “exactly” exactly, anyway. Close enough for space flight.

“My god, 22-inches.”

Y’know, no offense intended, to the WORLD and all, but... That was a solid COTD.

For no reason except your comment brought it to mind:

I’m not sure of anything, but I generally use enough euphemisms to leave open the plausibility that I may actually be talking about chess, car racing, or, um taking the leaves, if you know what I mean. 

In the grander scheme of the advancement of civilization, I choose to read this as an argument against tribalism. And I applaud.

Once a month, anyway..

I’m not going to tell you to ”you do you”, but I am going to me do me, as often as I want, in the privacy of my own home.

Makes 75k even more selective, but I STILL love this.

“...but bare with me here...”

Nice. Nice.

I am not Joe-Porsche-Guy but, oh my, I love this.

Tepid Take: NASA is right, but a bit unclear about what they’re actually saying.

Eh, I think the chances that Bugatti got it that backward are slim to none. Dude knew his shit. More likely is that the article simply got it wrong when saying he was going for downforce in the first place.

How about you do that for us. Probably easiest on everyone. So far, the little clues you’ve provided make it sound like your argument (as far as our comprehension allows us to understand it) is just plain wrong, with the “sorry” at the end adding more than a pinch of ignorance and dickishness to it.

Go on. 

1-3/4

The thing is, if you make a set of performance check boxes, there hasn’t been another engine made, as of now, that clicks more of them. ONE of them might be, I guess,“brand purity” or something like that, but, c‘mon: Bottom line? Power /weight / space / affordability / situational mod potential /... Best there's ever…

Same. 

Hm.